RSSRudy Giuliani Leads “Blind Bio” Poll
J.J. Jackson* | November 28, 2007
From Zogby:
The telephone survey, known as a “blind bio” poll because likely voters are given details of the candidates’ resumes without their names attached, shows Giuliani wins 34% support, compared to 22% each for Thompson and Romney. Ron Paul, who has surged recently in polls and has a significant online following, came in last with 13% support, while 9% said they were undecided on the question.
But, and here is further proof that Ron Paul is more popular among radical anti-war liberals than he is among libertarians and conservatives, when Democrats and “Independents” were included:
The blind bio question was also posed to a larger pool of 1,009 likely voters nationwide, including Democrats and independents, and Paul was the big winner among that universe of voters, winning 33%, compared to 19% for Giuliani, 15% for Romney, and 13% for Thompson.
Why? Because like “the Source” has told us, liberals know that Ron Paul will NEVER be able to get his domestic agenda through Congress and every veto he makes will be overridden but they are willing to use him to end the war.
Sorry Paul supporters. But the truth hurts. That’s why I continue to say that Paul’s best place is in the Congress and not the White House. In the White House he will just be a shackled slave to the liberals in Congress.
Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com
*Content posted by a user may not be completely written by that user. Content from another source is cited in either block quotes, with quotes or with a link to the original material. Content from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use. Each user is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or it's owner.
Comments
28 Responses to “Rudy Giuliani Leads “Blind Bio” Poll”
Leave a Reply
By posting a comment you agree to abide by the rules of this site.
Loading ...
-
Recommended Reading:
-
It says something when, once again, a poll confirms that it is not conservatives and libertarians that support Paul and just how much liberals are certain they will be able to stop him on anything he wants to accomplish.
Change has to be made in Congress first.
Why not take advantage of the liberals and elect Ron Paul to put a Republican in the Executive, and then later elect other Republicans into Congress?
We can’t do this with any other Republican candidate. It’s a bigger gamble with any other Republican candidate.
I’d rather Ron Paul be President than any the Democrats are offering.
The answer to that is simple. Electing Paul is a slap in my face and the service I have given this country just as much as it would be to elect a liberal goof democrat.
Also, read the article. None of the liberal candidates like Hillary and Obama were included in this poll. Given the choice the liberals will flock to them even if Paul is the Candidate. He can’t win against a true liberal as the anti-war crowd will jump ship for a hard core liberal.
Like Jeff pointed out. Paul in the White House would be a neutered candidate. You have to have the votes in Congress to override vetoes of unconstitutional spending before you can make the veto stick.
If you think Paul would actually win the election I weep for you.
America has to take little steps at this point. We are too far gone from Constitutional government and there are too many people on the dole from Welfare programs to do what Paul wants in terms of spending even though many of us would like to. Baby steps have to be taken back to limited government because those on the take are too numerous.
Lt. Krammer on November 28th, 2007 6:12 pm
“The answer to that is simple. Electing Paul is a slap in my face and the service I have given this country just as much as it would be to elect a liberal goof democrat.”
OOH-FUCKIN-RAH!
“America has to take little steps at this point. We are too far gone from Constitutional government and there are too many people on the dole from Welfare programs to do what Paul wants in terms of spending even though many of us would like to. Baby steps have to be taken back to limited government because those on the take are too numerous.”
Truth. It’s what’s for dinner.
You have to admit that the Paul supporters are tenacious. What a way to try and spin this!
Come on. The fact that liberals are flocking to him in droves should tell you something.
Vote for Ron Paul because liberals like his stance on the Iraq War?
No thanks. I’ll pass.
[...] Rudy Giuliani Leads “Blind Bio” Poll [...]
The left seems to have found yet another useful idiot to help promote their agenda.
The truth is unless you want a Democrat as President at the same time they control congress, you better think long and hard about who you nominate as the Republican candidate.
I understand it’s a slap in the face Lt. Krammer, but it’s not as bad as having Hillary or Obama as President. Not nearly as bad. Think about what they will do to the courts.
All you need to do is answer a few questions:
1. Which Republican candidate can garner more votes from liberals?
2. Will Republicans vote for the Democrat if Paul is the Republican candidate? Better yet, will you vote for Hillary or Obama instead of Paul?
3. Most importantly, which Republican stands the best chance against the Democrats.
Remember, we’ve lost the House and Senate already.
I agree America has to take little steps. The first one is to have a Republican Executive branch.
“2. Will Republicans vote for the Democrat if Paul is the Republican candidate? Better yet, will you vote for Hillary or Obama instead of Paul?”
In a head to head match up against Hillary, the last poll I say showed Paul losing by double digits so the answer is that conservatives and libertarians will not vote for an isolationist like Paul. I think there is commentary on that poll here somewhere.
“3. Most importantly, which Republican stands the best chance against the Democrats.”
Not Paul. Again, this poll is misleading because no liberals were included. Put Hillary and Obama in it and when you ask Liberals who they will vote for they will not pick Paul.
“In a head to head match up against Hillary, the last poll I say showed Paul losing by double digits so the answer is that conservatives and libertarians will not vote for an isolationist like Paul. I think there is commentary on that poll here somewhere.”
Who would you vote for if it were between Hillary and Paul? If Hillary is running, is NOT voting really an option?
“Not Paul. Again, this poll is misleading because no liberals were included. Put Hillary and Obama in it and when you ask Liberals who they will vote for they will not pick Paul.”
Then who? Describe the scenario. I’m trying to say that if it’s Romney or Giuliani against Hillary, we will lose like we did the House and Senate. The loss of the House and Senate is a concrete measure of the political mood out there.
“Who would you vote for if it were between Hillary and Paul? If Hillary is running, is NOT voting really an option?”
I will not vote for a man that would dishonor the sacrifices of me and my fellow soldiers any more than I would vote for a woman in Hillary that would.
In a Hillary/Paul match up it doesn’t matter who wins. If Hillary wins, we cut and run from the war on terror and have a socialist nanny state. If Paul wins we cut and run from the war on terror and have a socialist nanny state fueled by a Congress that overrides every veto he tries to make.
Your question is moot. Because the result is the same.
“Then who? Describe the scenario. I’m trying to say that if it’s Romney or Giuliani against Hillary, we will lose like we did the House and Senate. The loss of the House and Senate is a concrete measure of the political mood out there.”
Not according to the latest poll I have seen where Hillary is loosing to all the major candidates of the GOP side.
You’re throwing out a lot of questions that are easily not supported by reality. I don’t know why.
Kram, you’re hitting the nail on the head over and over again.
I don’t know why some people are trying to make the case for Paul based on this poll or why they are trying to convince people that a Paul presidency would be any different than a Hillary presidency aside from a few things that he might be able to accomplish like Judges, etc and even then Congress can move to block much of that still.
If Paul is the GOP candidate, and he WILL NOT BE, conservatives will stay home because they will get the same thing no matter who wins.
“Your question is moot. Because the result is the same.”
It’s not the same. Like a said before, we can start by having a GOP President and then take back Congress. I don’t see the point in losing the Presidency to the Dems and starting from there.
“Not according to the latest poll I have seen where Hillary is loosing to all the major candidates of the GOP side.”
That may be, but the GOP has gotten it’s ass kicked in Congress. I think the state of Congress is more real than a poll, and a strong indicator of what’s to come.
I am making my opinion clear: Ron Paul has a better chance than the rest of the GOP candidates against Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. Guiliani, Romney, McCain, or Thompson don’t stand a chance against them. Maybe Huckabee, but Ron Paul has the strongest chance.
I’m sorry, but conservatives and libertarians are not going to stay home and not vote and allow Hillary to be elected.
Ok, my PMS is not going to let me say this without sounding mean so here it goes. Pete, for the LOVE OF GOD, how many times are you going to say the exact same thing that goes counter to the evidence that is out there?
“I am making my opinion clear: Ron Paul has a better chance than the rest of the GOP candidates against Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. Guiliani, Romney, McCain, or Thompson don’t stand a chance against them. Maybe Huckabee, but Ron Paul has the strongest chance.”
Have you seen the latest Zogby poll where all the major GOP candidates beat Hillary? Or is your fetish for Ron Paul. which is showing, blinding you?
A few months back when asked who people would vote for, Paul or Hillary/Obama, Paul lost hands down. Wasn’t even close!
Ron Paul Head To Head With Clinton/Obama
Heck, he even loses to Steven Colbert head to head!
Colbert More Popular Choice Than Ron Paul Or Dennis Kucinich
I whole heartedly agree PM.
It doesn’t matter. Paul supporters will continue to claim that he is the ONLY candidate to have a chance. It doesn’t matter that time and again his supporters resort to lying (such as about his military support) and are shown to be liberals. They will still try to get conservatives and libertarians to vote for him.
I personally can’t believe that anyone would dishonor the military, my brothers and sisters in arms and their mission by voting for him.
The Ron Paul is the only candidate that can win bull is old hat tried only today by frustrated Paulites.
Love, even for a candidate, is blind.
There is no way Ron Paul has a chance in the general election and yes, conservatives and libertarians will stay home rather than vote for him specifically because of his stance on the war.
I think the other thing to note about this poll is that EVEN when liberals are added to the mix Ron Paul still only got 33% because of his anti-war, isolationism. 67% DID NOT support him! And still 47% favored candidates that believe in the Iraq War and our troops!
The Democrats are the majority in the House and Senate. This happened recently.
That should tell you chances of the GOP winning the presidency are already slim.
I never said Paul was the ONLY one with a chance. I say he’s got the BEST chance.
Worried about dishonoring the military? Wait and see if Hillary wins.
“I never said Paul was the ONLY one with a chance. I say he’s got the BEST chance.”
You obviously don’t pay attention. PinguMama cited THREE (count them THREE) facts that contradict your repeated claim.
You can keep saying making your claims about Paul over and over and over but it isn’t going to make them true. Except maybe on a Ron Paul fan site where they regularly live in an alternate reality.
When Paulbots Attack … Part 1,045,322,201
Why has the GOP lost the Senate and the House? Can any of PinguMama’s THREE facts explain it? Can you explaing it with any polls? The GOP’s chances for the presidency are slim already. Stop ignoring this. I want a GOP President.
J.J. Jackson said above that “Ron Paul is more popular among radical anti-war liberals”. Paul is more likely to get votes from liberals than any other GOP candidate. I say take advantage of that.
Conservatives are not going to refuse to vote if the race is between Paul and Hillary. Know why?
Because contrary to Lt. Krammer, Congress won’t be able to override a veto by Paul without a two-thirds majority in each house. The Dems don’t have it now and I doubt they’ll have it then.
Having Paul as President will NOT be the same as Hillary as President. Paul will exercise the veto and the Democrat controlled Congress won’t be able to do anything about it.
A Democrat President will be a DISASTER for the country and a DISASTER for the military.
Remember, even though he’s against the war, Ron Paul served in the military and advocates a strong military and strong national defense.
I can’t add anything more and I’m getting a little repetetive, so I’ll rest my case here.
Good luck folks.
“I can’t add anything more and I’m getting a little repetetive, so I’ll rest my case here.”
All I can say is THANK GOD! After not being able to prove your assertions about Ron Paul having the “best” chance of winning because every poll PM cited states contrary to that opinion you have finally decided to give up beating your head against the brick wall you have created.
Hallelujah!
If you think for one second that there are not enough liberals (both Reps and Dems) in both houses of Congress to override every Paul veto that would come down the pike on every socialist entitlement you haven’t been paying attention and have far too much Kool Aid in your system to be reasoned with.
Every day since I stopped going to Ron Paul Meetups and stopped supporting him as a candidate I count my blessings. Because it means one day less that I have had to put up with the violent spinning of people like Pete who make about as much sense as Ted Kennedy after a few shots of whiskey.
You can’t argue with these folks because they don’t live in the reality that everyone else does. They just stick to the official Ron Paul talking points and that’s the way it is.
Pete on November 30th, 2007 4:07 pm
“I can’t add anything more and I’m getting a little repetetive, so I’ll rest my case here.”
What case? You haven’t made any case!
Anyone want to take bets on if Pete actually means this when he says he’s dropping it? Or do you think he’ll do the typical thing and keep responding?
Members, there is a forum set up for you on the private side to place your bets.